Monday, November 20, 2006

BCS: Ohio State vs.:USC? Florida? (Hint: NOT Michigan)

Being down in Gainesville this past weekend, I had a LOT of time to ponder the state of the BCS. First, here's how it looks like it's going to play out:

If USC beats Notre Dame and UCLA, they will likely jump idle Michigan into that No. 2 spot. (If Florida beats FloridaState and Arkansas, they SHOULD jump idle Michigan, too, but likely won't be able to jump USC.) In any other scenario, OhioState and Michigan play in a rematch.

Everyone's got a reason NOT to be picked:

*USC lost to an unranked team.*Florida has no "style."*Michigan had their shot.

I understand the argument FOR Michigan, and it has nothing to do with who they have beaten (a thin list); it's about the "quality" of their single loss -- to the No. 1 team, on the road, by 3 -- which trumps the quality of every other one-loss team's single loss.

Urban Meyer is pretty adamant that, no matter what (even USC getting in the national title game ahead of Florida), Michigan should NOT get another shot in the national title game, that Michigan being there delegitimizes the title game.

I agree with him.

If this was a political race (and, really, it plays out more like that than anything having to do with football – and I'm surprised that teams like USC and Florida don't actually create political-style ads and buy TV air-time to run them to promote themselves), I would hammer the following point if I was USC and Florida:

Michigan had their shot.

Having beaten Michigan already, why should OhioState have to beat them AGAIN to win the title? If Michigan beats OhioState in the BCS title game, would OhioState have a claim to a split national title? After all, that would merely EVEN the season series.

The point is: Michigan had their shot. With no clear No. 2, the team with the LEAST valid claim is the one who just had their chance to win but didn't. With Michigan, we've seen how it played out on the field.

Wouldn't you now like to see how OhioState would do against a team that has performed as well out of the non-conference as USC? Or against a team that has peformed as well in the sport's toughest conference as Florida?

Michigan had their shot and fell short. (By extension, you could argue that Michigan fans love the BCS system as it currently is and would argue against the idea of a playoff, which every other fan wants. After all, if there WAS a playoff and Michigan lost, their fans -- based on the last 48 hours' lobbying -- would whine that they didn't REALLY get eliminated and that they want another chance. Again, politics-style: Michigan fans are against replacing the BCS system with a playoff.)

Michigan just played in the closest thing that college football has ever had to a real playoff semifinal game, and they blew it. Let's treat it like the de facto playoff it was and leave Michigan behind and look forward: It's time for someone else to get to take their shot against the best.

If USC and/or Florida finish the season equaling Michigan's one loss, then -- all things being equal -- they deserve consideration for the BCS title game ahead of Michigan. Good thing there's a lot of football left to play on the field to help possibly clear this up.

145 comments:

I don't think OSU would lose to Mich in a rematch. They were driving when they had those 2 botched snaps so the game could have been a blowout. Davich or Babich I don't remember his name will have 6 weeks to heal that broken hand and should be better at snapping the ball then.

USC had their shot too - and couldn't even beat Oregon State. Florida had their shot and lost to Auburn. Notre Dame lost to, get this, MICHIGAN.

Look, the argument could be made that comparing the schedules, and assuming USC beats Notre Dame and Florida wins out, that either team is better than Michigan. But your theory is basically "one-and-done," and is factually incoherent. EVERY team has had their shot.

Furthermore, to say that Michigan had their FAIR shot is also factually wrong. USC or Florida or whoever under your theory gets to play OSU in Glendale, Arizona. Michigan lost by three to Ohio State AT Ohio State, on a field that played a large role in the game, which Michigan was, naturally, not used to.

So why don't you try again, except this time making a LOGICAL argument.

I am a Michigan fan... BUT I agree with the "they had their shot" people. "But they lost on the road" isn't compelling to me. Most playoff formats don't have all the playoff games on neutral sites, so the game was like a playoff game where the higher seed (Ohio State was #1) got home field. Michigan lost. Now, if Notre Dame somehow sneaks into the BCS championship (can't see the voters letting that happen), THAT would be complete crap.

think about the down time beofr the national championship if you are OSU/MICH

thats like if a team won their conference championship on the last weekend in january like normal but instead of the superbowl being the first week of february it was in the middle of the third week of march

how is this allowed?

We did forget to mention Notre Dame though. If they beat USC it doesn't even matter because if the choice is Mich/ND then its MICH because they rocked ND in south bend. I think that's kinda sad though. USC and ND both have one loss and are ranked very high but if USC wins by 1 at home they go the 'ship but if ND wins by 21 on the road they still have no shot. That's kinda depressing don't you think. Why should ND even care about this game besides revenge from last year?

I'm not for a rematch but....Do you say that since the Steelers lost to Cinci in October that they shouldn't have gotten to the SuperBowl last year? orSince the Colts beat the Patriots a few weeks ago that they shouldn't have to play them again?

so why that song about Michigan?

A PLAYOFF System is the only answer and the game just played wasn't "close to a playoff game" as it was a home game for tOSU

What if Arkansas goes to the Championship game and beats tOSU in a very close game while Michigan routs USC in the Rose? Is Arkansas the undisputed national champ? How is that scenario different then the old bowl system?

If there was an NFL-style playoff in college football, then OSU and UM would NOT meet in the national championship. They would likely meet in something like a conference championship since they're both in the Big 10. I would be played at the home field of the team that was higher in the standings. And that's exactly what happened on Saturday.

Hard to take Dan's thoughts on this seriously since he has always spoken with a very extreme Florida bias. Of course you are going to lobby for Florida to get a shot, you are a Florida homer.

Not to say I necessarily want to see or think there should be a Michigan/OSU rematch. But, for example, if an undefeated Florida team lost at an undefeated LSU by 3 points on a crappy field you would be right back here saying how much they deserve a rematch.

i understand all of the arguments for all of the teams. what i hate to see get lost in all of this is the need for a playoff. urban meyer, though biased, is correct, as was tommy tubberville earlier this year...and even bob stoops converted this year. we can only hope that ALL of the coaches, including catbird seat jim tressel, begin to clamour for a playoff. if we took the top 16 teams in the bcs atandings after this year and played it out, there would be no arguing or bias or second-guessing the true national champion. all i can do is say go gators and just hope that the dominoes fall for them.

Just my opinion - but I say 8 teams, with no regard to conferences, and you can still use the BCS rankings to determine them.

Yes, everyone will bitch about the difference between the 8th and 9th ranked teams. But there has got to be a cut-off somewhere, so draw the line at 8. And then go NFL-playoff system from there - home field advantage up until the title game.

Also, are you against a playoff in the NFL? Would you rather have beat writers and computers determine the two best teams in the league, and then have the Super Bowl based on those rankings? Just curious. And if not - then how is it different?

While I do agree that Michigan has had their shot. That wasn't a playoff game they just played.

IF there was a playoff game it would probably be a 4 or 8 team playoff. Michigan and Ohio State wouldn't of met until the championship game and it would be on a neutral field.

You can bring in politics all you want, the point of the BCS system is for the two best teams to play in the national championship game. Currently the BCS has the two best teams as being Ohio State and Michigan.

It really is a two team race. It will either be USC or Michigan. Flordia has the smallest shot possible because they have zero quality wins. They need to prey that Arkansas gets to the SEC game with only 1 loss. And they need to blow them out of the water to even be in the discussion.

Pretty simple, USC wins out, they go to the championship game. USC doesn't win out there will be a rematch.

The Michigan fan in me wants a rematch at the closest thing to a neutral field as possible. The football fan in me sees the de facto playoff and would want OSU against whoever is next in line (UF, Arkansas, ND, USC?) Anyways, tough call from my standpoint and being a Michigan fan I can't lose either way. MattPortage, MI

I don't see how USC is ahead of Flordia. Here are the combine records for USC and Flordia opponets up to date (does not count opponets not yet played)

USC: 64-48 75%Flordia 69-55 79.7%

Ok they both have one loss Flordia's to Auburn and USC to Oregon state.

USC's out of conference schedule is tougher but it has to be because the Pac-10 is a cake walk outside of USC.

If Florida wins out, they will have won the toughest conference and only have one loss.

If USC wins out, they will have won one of the weakest also with one loss.

Does who you lose to not matter? What if "Team A" beats Ohio St., Michigan and Flordia but loses to Temple? Beating quality opponets is great but you also have to beat the teams that you are supposed to.

I'm no Flordia fan by any means but I fail to see the logic behind why USC is so much better than Flordia.

It really is a two team race. It will either be USC or Michigan. Flordia has the smallest shot possible because they have zero quality wins.

How can you say that Florida has zero quality wins? They beat both LSU and Tennessee. Plus, their only loss came from Auburn (currently ranked #14). USC, on the other hand lost to UNRANKED Oregon State.

It bothers me that the biggest knock on Florida is that they have no style. It shouldn't matter how they win, just as long as they win. Why should a 10-1 record be suspect because of a couple close games?

Anyway, since we are talking about SOS and quality wins, isn't the logic that if you have to lose, lose early and not in your last game (like Michigan)?

Anyway, since we are talking about SOS and quality wins, isn't the logic that if you have to lose, lose early and not in your last game (like Michigan)?

That's only because the pollsters are typically idiots (cf the current positions of WVU, UL, and Rutgers). For once, they got it (in theory) right.

I also reject the Style Points argument as well. Doesn't anyone remember OSU's championship season four years ago? Oy vey! Unless you consider "letting the other team stay close and eke out a win at the end" style.

I like the idea that conference championships actually matter for something. If you're doing a playoff, I say an 8 team playoff, with the conf champs and 2 wild cards, one going to the best non-BCS conference school, including ND (allowing at least the possibility of a hickory high/george mason type run), and the final wild-card going to the top-school remaining (preserving in general the conference championship sanctity, and all teams have to play for it, but allowing one single school a year a second chance). I don't like the 16 school (or more) playoff, because it cheapens the regular season, and takes the excitement out of the games.

In this scenario, winning your conference chapmionship would be THE most important thing, up until tourney time (call it the little dance), and would take the bullshit politics out of everything (except for the wildcard; those people who like the voting process would still have something to discuss). And each conference could determine how they wanted to designate the winner.

The best part about these arguments is when everyone else argues that some other team had a terrible schedule. Going down the thread we can determine that the SEC sucks, the Big Ten sucks, the Pac10 sucks, ND is overrated so wins against them mean nothing, and pretty much any good schools out of conference wins were against bad teams.

Hey, lets just pull a name out of a hat and call them national champions.

tell ND to join the Big10 so we can have an even number of teams and actually have a championship game.

here's a big bag of cry for everyone complaining about OSU's field. Both teams played on it. Michigan's tubby kicker didn't miss anything that cost them the game on the grass, so I don't want to hear it.

The fact that this is even being argued shoots the idea that the regular season is a "de facto playoff" to hell. Playoffs have a definitive winner, not a choice of the 3 best teams to play the top team.

Michigan did have their chance and lost. USC, Florida, Arkansas and maybe even Notre Dame deserve a chance if the rest of the games play out in their favor. If all 3 (maybe 4) shit the bed, then let Michigan in.

Regular season is more like a pod style playoff used for world championships. It doesn't necessarily show who the best is, but eliminates those that have no chance.

Regarding a rematch: I have no major issue with it because it would be on a neutral field. I think it would be a good game, at any rate. But I can see where you'd want to pass on Michigan because they just lost to OSU. But if you start eliminating teams because of who they lost to, you start to lose sight of the important issue, who are the BEST two teams right now. If Michigan had lost to OSU by three, at OSU, in week one, almost everyone would want to see them play again.

If every conference had a championship game (on a neutral field?), as #1mavsfan implores, then there is a chance that one or two more teams would be eliminated from title hopes naturally.

Of course we'd still be hearing the "my conference is better than your conference" arguments until February.

And don't forget Boise State. They are undefeated.

If a playoff system makes the season too long, then explain why there are 50 days between the end of the regular season (for some teams anyway) and the title game.

In two weeks, this debate may be down to just two teams, but we will debate the issue until Jan. 8th. And that is certainly good for fan interest so the NCAA will be happy.

Notre Dame plays in the Big East in basketball. I'm not sure how conference allegiances work, but I doubt they'd be allowed to join the Big Ten in football. OK, they are in a different conference in hockey (CCHA), but hockey is a special case (no hockey jokes, please).

pootietang...don't be an asshat. #1mavsfan actually does have a valid point. We have these conferences that aren't playong on equal ground. We've had #1 teams from conferences with a championship game that lose that championship game and a shot at the title (Kansas St a few years back). The "extra" game hurt them. As of right now, the Big 10, Pac 10, and Big East have no conference championship games. But at least the Pac 10 and Big East all play each other and can determine a "true" champion that way. The Big 10 has unbalanced schedules as not every team plays each other. ND is a creature all its own.

The underlying fact to all of this is $$$. That's why the ACC raided the Big East (BC in the ACC???). They wanted the revenue from the championship game. A playoff will never happen because becuase there's too much money involved with the bowls. (which sucks)

So I have no idea who should play Ohio State. I really don't want to see Michigan-OSU again, I'm personally tired of USC, and I could care less about the SEC. I don't want to see ND-OSU either because we saw that last year. THe whole thing is a mess.

I'd love seeing a playoff, and make it 12 teams, with the top 4 getting bye's. The Big 6 conference champs would automatically qualify.

It's not like this was a back and forth battle where the last team with the ball won. OSU made some serious mistakes that allowed UM to get back into the game in the third quarter. Yes, kudos to UM for fighting to get back in.

But gang (and yes, I'm an OSU homer, but seriously) the game was not as close as the final score indicated. Yes, it's a cliche, but I think in this case it's true. Can UM beat OSU? Sure. But home field advantage wasn't the difference on Saturday.

College football needs to have a 4-team playoff, simple as that, the top team from each of 4 top conferences. Screw all that nonsense about bowl tradition, if the "national championship" should be taken seriously, then make it into a real championship, not a modified popularity system. And make Notre Dame choose a conference. It's too easy for ND right now.

We can't argue about some mythical 4 "best" teams regardless of conference. All those arguments about the NFL? Well, in the NFL system, an AFC and NFC teams always meet in the Super Bowl, how fair is that? This year, it should be Patriots/Colts, and everyone pretty much knows it.

College football should be a meritocracy, where you earn it in the playoffs and in your conference, not a democracy where you win it in the polls.

We've got to get incentives to the conferences to schedule real competition. With so few games, there's no reason for a BCS contender to schedule D-IAA schools. It's embarassing.

So we pick the 4 winners of the top-ranked conferences.

Forcing teams to win their conferences - while making it important to schedule heavyweight non-conference games (which won't count against you but could get you into the playoffs) - would be the perfect solution to High-HYPE teams playing weak non-conference schedules and coasting into the big game.

So I agree that Michigan had their shot. There are too few games to give second chances. How is "every game a playoff" true if the loser of a Big Ten championship gets to play the best team overall? There's too much money at stake for all the conferences for that farce.

Using the conference championship as a playoff system won't work either. The reason is because conference championships can be bullshit too. Remember in 2003 when Oklahoma got worked 35-7 by Kansas State, and Oklahoma still ened up playing for the national championship against LSU?

In that secenario, there is no reason why Oklahoma should have been playing for the national title. I'm not saying that Kansas State should have been in the national championship game, but Oklahoma's loss should have opened the door for another team.

So realistically, there are three remaining contenders with a chance to face Ohio State: USC, Michigan and Florida. The only scenario under which I see the Ohio State-Michigan rematch actually coming to fruition is if USC loses a game, and if Arkansas loses to LSU, thus taking away some of the luster from a possible Florida victory. Even then, I feel like most of the country hasn't seen a Gators game since their loss to Auburn, and if it does comes down to Michigan and Florida, the Gators -- in particular their defense -- will get a chance to make a final impression just a few hours before the last ballots are due.

Has no one learned a thing about the need to polarize a national fan base from the World Series ratings? Without the Yankees, only a small portion of the public pays attention. Likewise, college football needs Notre Dame as an Independent - they polorize the entire national college football fan base one way or another. Having them join a conference would isolate the majority of the college football landscape from really caring about them.

Besides, don't you think ND has learned the lessons of Penn State? How's that conference membership working out for them? Granted it was pre-BCS, but didn't that whole conference affiliation-bowl game contract ruin what should have been a National Championship for them in 1994? They've also only had one BCS Bowl season since then, but they were perennial national championship contenders before joining the Big Ten.

They'd also have to give up their national TV and radio contracts, which are VERY lucritive for them.

From a competitive and a financial standpoint, conference membership isn't all it's cracked up to be.

A 4 team playoff this year would be great. OSU, Mich, ND/USC, and FLA/ARK.

But I think an 8 team would be better in reality. Either the 6 conference winners plus 2 wildcards, or just take the top 8 BCS... either way if you're not in the top 8 BCS it's your fault (lose more than once and you're probably out)

Maybe Florida should play its "semi-final" at Arkansas. That would even things up a bit for all those Florida backers saying Michigan had their shot -- even if their shot happened in front of 100k hostile fans in Columbus.

UM should not get a rematch. What if they beat OSU in the national championship?? The teams would have split 1-1 and it would prove nothing. UM had their chance and didnt come through when they needed to. END.OF.STORY. Now we get to argue who's loss is "better" than whom's. Now talking about something stupid...

Isn't it pretty much OSU and then everybody else? I say USC or Florida does deserve it more than Michigan again.

Michigan would have never been in that game if that OSU center doesn't fumble those two snaps, all because he was wearing a cast! Guess where that cast will be in 6 weeks? Gone. Take those 2 fumbles out and Michigan probably loses by 14-20 points and nobody is talking about a rematch.

No, I am pointing out that the people that said Michigan played perfectly and still lost are stupid. Michigan made the biggest mistake of the game at the worst possible time. They deserved to lose the game but acting like they weren't in it at all is stupid.

-Schools are on break/in finals in mid-december. You can't play games.

-Mid-January is NFL playoff time. They would put up a big fight over a college playoff.

-Ever sit outside for 4 hours in Ann Arbor, Columbus, or Madison in December or January? Not fun.

-Abolishing the bowls is impractical - too much money at stake.

That being said, a playoff would have to be 8 teams, it would have to be at neutral sites in warm climates, and it would have to be at a time that does not conflict with academic finals or the NFL playoffs.

And then there's the issue of picking the 8 teams. You could use the BCS, but that would render the conference titles completely meaningless. It would also encourage teams to schedule patsies, because going undefeated would mean making the playoffs.

I am a Florida fan who believes that USC deserves to be in the National Title game if the season ended right now.

We have 2 very tough games left and will be more concerned about UF then.

However, I am arguing that it is rediculous to have guys like Kirk Herbstreit going on air 15 minutes after the game ends and yells that there NEEDS to be a rematch, and that a team like Florida would be beaten soundly by Michigan on the field.

To counter, I don't believe Michigan should be removed from the argument. They have 1 loss and played a tough schedule. However, they need to get back into a position to go to that game.

There should be an 8-team playoff, the 6 BCS conference champs and two wild cards. Use the BCS systems to determine the wild cards, as long as they won their respective conferences. It should up to the conference to determine how they designate a champion. Make the first round:

I'd say solomon's solution was pretty good - you'd still have to win your conference; although which was named the top four conferences each year might be kind of difficult. Although I'd say this year it is definitely the Big 10 and SEC and, surprisingly, the Big East; what if USC loses, though? then Texas and USC might have to have a little bitch fight over who was more deserving.

chrth - that last line doesn't make any sense at all. none. thanks for playing.

rafael - sure, OSU didn't play on that particular sod; that doesn't mean they didn't know how shitty it was, or play on similar shitty sod previously, or have more shitty sod at a different facility (probably not this last one, but doubtless the first two).OSU certainly did "handle it better," and I think that's pretty important to the discussion. I don't know what shoes they were wearing, or what drills they had run back in October before the last terrible sod was removed, but I do know that they played with relative ease on a surface provided by tOSU, on which Michigan had trouble playing.Fuller thoughts here

Here's this week's CFB Ladder Rankings. Ohio State has a 190 point lead on the #2 team, but only 40 points separates #2 to #8. There will be a couple of teams closing in on OSU, however, due to games remaining on the schedule.

MAHER, seriously. Don't let your allegiance blind you. It was a THREE point game! You mention three OSU turnovers that "caused" the game to be that close. Here's another way to look at that: Pressure and execution from Michigan caused the turnovers. How's that?

And just in case you don't agree with that, look at it this way: How good are you if you hand the ball to the other team in a pressure situation? Heisman worthy QB? Not really if that's the case.

And then you imply that Michigan couldn't overcome OSU despite these gifts. That's not making Michigan look that good. And OSU could ONLY beat that poor team by 3, at home?

The game was close. The score indicates that, and so does the fact that both teams DID have a chance near the end.

Schools are on break in mid december..so you can't have games!? Since when?? Basketball is played over breaks..D-IAA plays over breaks...It's Thanksgiving break right now, there will still be games this Saturday. Games also would not have to be in warmer climates. This is college football. Noone minds playing in the cold...fans dont mind watching in the cold.

So those two reasons against a playoffs are silly. The only reason against a playoff that counts is the $$$.

Pressure and execution from Michigan caused the turnovers. How's that?

And just in case you don't agree with that, look at it this way: How good are you if you hand the ball to the other team in a pressure situation?

Uh, did you watch the game? Two of the three turnovers was caused by a bad snap by a center with a cast on his hand. As for the third turnover, it's arguable that Troy tried to push the ball into a bad location, but even still, the ball was deflected towards a lineman (who wasn't even covering the receiver). No offense, but your argument isn't borne out by reality.

-Ever sit outside for 4 hours in Ann Arbor, Columbus, or Madison in December or January? Not fun.

That being said, a playoff would have to be 8 teams, it would have to be at neutral sites in warm climates, and it would have to be at a time that does not conflict with academic finals or the NFL playoffs.

Um, fans of the Packers, Bengals, Browns, Bills, and Patriots all sit outside and freeze their asses off for 4 hours in December.

Why would a playoff need to be in a neutral site with a temperate climate? The purpose of a playoff is not to eliminate home field advantage, but rather to determine who is most worthy of playing for the championship.

Home field advantage should not be removed until the actual championship game which would be played at a neytral site (just like the NFL).

It's ridiculous to say "if it wasn't for the 3 turnovers at then end of the game, OSU would have killed UM". That's why we play the games.

And Michigan made their share of stupid mistakes, too. If you take out Henne overthrowing a wide open Manningham in the 2nd quarter(?), the roughing the passer penalty, and the 18 missed tackles on the 2 OSU 50+ yard TD runs, Michigan smokes OSU. All 4 of those plays were as big as turnovers.

One: Remember when USC argued that Oklahoma didn't deserve a chance to be in the Championship game against LSU because they lost their conference championship game, resulting in a split champion between USC and LSU. Same argument here -- without the neutral field, just plain sense. If Michigan is not the best team in the Big 10, why should they get a 2nd chance?

Two: These are Student Athletes who are preparing for final exams now and need this time to study, not play playoff football. Remember the student portion of this?

Three: The other divisions in football have championships because they do not have bowls, thus creating an additional revenue stream for the smaller schools. The big boys get 30+ bowl games, allowing 60+ teams to play one extra game, earning school/ conference/ and NCAA revenue but also giving those teams 4-6 more practice weeks. Some teams will use those practice weeks this year to get better for next year. Why limit the 60+ post-season slots to 8 or 16? Just so Joe Fan can say they saw the "college superbowl" while eliminating the great bowl tradition in college football?

With USC-ND and Florida-Arkansas to come, Wisconsin will finish with at least the number 6 BCS ranking, and could finish at number 5 if West Virginia loses to Rutgers. While they could be taken ahead of Michigan for a BCS bowl, that won't happen. Id ND wins that will give Michigan wins over number 3/4 and 5/6 with a loss to number 1.

I'm not saying that a playoff system is impossible, but it's much more complicated than people think. TV contracts are hard things to work around, and that's what drives these bowl games. After college football season, the NFL plays games on Saturdays, so you would have to coordinate with CBS and Fox, who air both, (Fox just paid about a billion dollars for the rights to every BCS bowl game except for the Rose Bowl).

And you simply can't have teams play games during finals - practically, there is no way around this.

Why not have an 8 team playoff. Take the top BCS 8 and seed them as they are ranked. Losers of each round go to the designated January bowl. Playoff games are held at the higher seeds stadium until the bowl game. This year for example (I simply chose the higher ranked team to win for example sake):

i really hope you read this...how can you penalize my michigan wolverines for playing in the big ten along side ohio state. florida is trash, as we have seen in the last few weeks, and the only legit argument would be for USC. USC beat Oregon, Michigan beat Penn St. (top 25 BCS). USC beat Cal, Michigan beat Wisco (top 10 BCS). USC will beat ND, Michigan kicked their behinds in South Bend by 26 points...USC did beat Arkansas nonetheless, but Arkansas was a shadow of what it is now.

But USC lost to an UNRANKED team, and Michigan lost to the best team in the country, on the road,and were a personal foul away from perhaps beating them.

A team should not be penalized for its regular season outcome. If the two best teams, with all of the season's game take into consideration, come from the same conference, OSU and Michigan, then they should be playing for the title...I tremendously enjoy this blog and most all your comments, but in ZERO way can i concur with your argument here, and I am extraordinarily dissapointed big guy.

You can't seriously have a playoff system that only invites the champions of the top 6 conferences and I'll list a couple reasons why:

1) Conferences are uneven, meaning sometimes a really lousy team gets into the championship game simply by being less lousy than the rest of the teams in that division of the conference, and the perfect example of that has been the Big 12 North for the last few years.

2) There are currently 11 conferences, which would guarantee that 5 conferences every year are automatically excluded from the playoffs. Yes, these conference champions could possibly make a run and squeak into the at-large playoff bids, but they're still being excluded. As it stands they were already so pissed at being excluded from the BCS that the BCS added a game to expand their BCS invites to 10 spots to try to prevent any lawsuits. It will be worse if you have a playoff system, there will definitely be some major lawsuits.

Granted, I would love to see an 8 team playoff, but you cannot automatically invite the conference winners. If you MUST follow the conference model, then you would have to have a 12 team playoff, with the top 4 teams getting a bye in the first round. That would include the winner of every conference, and an at-large team.

Stop with the "if this happened..." or "this guy had a cast so...". If Michigan scored everytime they touched the ball they would have won...if Troy Smith three for eighteen TDs they would have blown them out...they played the game, OSU (the better team) won, thats it. Deal with it.

No one BUT Michigan deserves to be in the national title game. So now people are saying because you barely lost to the best team in the nation instead of OREGON ST, AUBURN (2 losses), or to USC by 100, we dont deserve to be in. Take off your Southeastern Conference glasses and get a clue. Ark and UF dont deserve being in the national title. Who cares if Michigan didn't win the big 10. UF has 1 loss in the Sec and Michigan has 1 loss in the big 10. I'd love for Michigan to play UF in the Rose Bowl and OSU destroying USC in the national title, then hear people say, oh maybe they were right, they should have played again.

1) Conferences are uneven, meaning sometimes a really lousy team gets into the championship game simply by being less lousy than the rest of the teams in that division of the conference, and the perfect example of that has been the Big 12 North for the last few years.

Ummm, didn't this happen in the pros last year with the Steelers?

The problem is everyone is missing the point. If there is a playoff system, the last team standing would be the best in the country. So, by extension, if a shitty team squeaks its way into its conference's championship, wins and then advances through the playoffs and wins it all, it is deserved. That's why it is called a playoff.

If we were to just pick two teams to play that are perceived to be the best, well, that's the system we have now.

Face it, there is now way to tell which team is the best unless they all play each other. Human polls, computer rankings and the BCS all mean shit. They've gotten it wrong before and they'll get it wrong again. That why some years we end up with co-champions. Seriously, what's that all about?

chrth: No offense taken. I happened to argue both sides of the turnover equation. To make a point. Turnovers... either you make 'em, or "they" force 'em. Either way, turnovers are bad. And as you pointed out, OSU's were of their own making. They are still bad. And the game was still close.

1) Try as you might Michigan-Ohio State was NOT a semi-final playoff game. #1 doesn't play #2 in the semi's.

2) The college presidents and the NCAA will not allow a playoff without a minimum of 11 teams, 1 spot for EACH of the 11 Div 1A conferences. So say it'll be 16 teams, 11 champs and 5 at-larges. So for all of you pushing for playoffs remember that that playoff will include Houston or Southern Miss (Conf USA), Ohio or Central Michian (MAC), BYU (Mtn West) and Middle Tenn St (Sun Belt). Div 1AA, 2, and 3 due it this way and there is a selection committee to fill the remaining spots.

3) The cast may or may not be off of Datish's hand when Ohio State plays in the National Championship game. His hand has been healed for the last 5-6 weeks, he only wears the cast because the o-line coach makes him out of superstition.

Florida is trash because of a couple of close games? If I remember correctly, OSU had some trouble Illinois and Michigan had a rough time with Ball Friggin' State. So by that logic, OSU and Michigan are also trash.

freky j, obviously most of the conference champions don't deserve a sniff of a postseason playoff. why have the champion of the sunbelt go up against the SEC champ? This year, I can only see Boise St and (maybe) BYU having any kind of argument. So a playoff doens't have to include all of them.

College football regular season is absolutely awesome (unless its florida hosting western carolina). Generally, the most important thing (unless you are in the argument for nat'l title) is to hopefully beat your top rivals, and, in your good years, to win the conference title. If you want to have a play-off, you need to keep the sancrity of winning your conference title. Because I completely agreed with everyone that, if there's a playoff of the top 16 teams, that game on saturday would have been meaningless. And the ND/USC game would be meaningless. and the Ark/UF game would be meaningless.

You know why noone really gives a shit about college basketball regular season? Because it's essentially meaningless. Even in the one-bid conferences, if you are going to have a tourney to decide who goes to the big dance, the regular season is meaningless.

So let the major conference champs play, and let there be a couple of wildcards, and leave them open so the Boise States get in (and if you want to officially exclude notre dame from consideration, you'll get no argument from me).

There's nobody that can currently discredit Michigan as the #2 team in the country. USC lost to Oregon State. Florida lost to Auburn. Notre Dame lost big to Michigan. Arkansas lost big to USC, and the rest of the teams just get progressively worse from there.

Just because the #2 team in the country happened to play the #1 team during the regular season doesn't give anyone else a claim of "They've already had their chance" and ignore that they're still the #2 team. That's complete idiocy.

*sarcasm* Let's just all agree to rank Michigan 25th to ensure they can't make the title game, because they've already had their chance.

the idea that a playoff is NOT needed to determine a true champion is ridiculous. every champion up to this point has been a mythical one. it's the only sport(actually division of one sport) the ncaa has it wrong. i don't know how you have one with less than 12(top 4 get a bye) or 16 teams. i think bcs rankings would be fair, as long as they are able to be tweaked to punish scheduling patsies. i actually think it would help teams schedules like it does in basketball, so those teams are not afraid to play big boys. lets face it, as much as college football is a passion, the bowl season is listless every year because there is so little meaning to it. it does not even come close to the excitement that is march madness. having said that, the bowl system can continue for the non-playoff qualifiers, allowing for the extra practice and game for those schools. it does not have to be mutually exclusive.

I agree with you nyc-steelers fan. I would love a playoff system, but absolutely do NOT want it to go the conference championship route, because you have conferences that are a joke, and sometimes the joke comes from a power conference.

At the end of the bowl season there will be two teams that have a decent claim to the #1 spot (one of them will be ranked there). Put those two teams up against each other, there's your championship game.

Why get rid of the bowls when you can resolve this confusion without doing so? I thought we all liked the bowl games.

The best team will NOT win every year in a playoff, even though everyone seems to think so. Can anyone provide an example of this mystical sport where the best team wins the playoff every year? And keep in mind: this is the raison d'etre for anyone who is clamoring for a playoff. PROVE IT!

here is an argument why mich is NOT #2: Georgia, Tenn, LSU, Auburn, Arkansas, South Carolina, and even Alabama would be favorites over every team in the big-10 save osu, mich, and bucky. mich played all those crappy teams, oh, and notre dame, to build up this "great defense" which got exposed against osu. there's your argument.

BECAUSE there are 122 teams in DivIA, I don't care about the Wolverines. They didn't play tough competition, and they lost to the best team in the land. Now we want to find someone who CAN beat OSU, fairly, facing them for the first time. Someone other than Mich.

Because Rutgers doesn't get a "do-over" for Cincinnati. And USC can't get Oregon State back.

And there is no mythical "best team" or "best two teams". Matchups are important, and maybe Florida can succeed with defense where Michigan failed with good luck and a shootout. As long as there IS a bowl system, they should try for an interesting matchup that hasn't been seen already this year.

I'd love to see UF against OSU. UF's offense would have a tough tough game. Don't give me that crap about UGA, ALABAMA, and all the highly overrated SEC schools. We'll see when all those schools play big ten schools in the rest of the bowl games.

have to agree w/john at this point. NO one is going to see the other's point of view. In the end, Michigan lost. If they get a rematch, great for them, but even if they lose I doubt the excuses would stop. If they win, it is a fraud since they didn't deserve to be there.

I remember all the cocky michigan fans talking last week about "holding Tressel to it" if OSU lost (re: Tressel saying pre-game that there should be no rematch), suddenly they are gone.

I think UM is the 2nd best team in the country, but I don't really think it matters who #2 is.

pootie:I see your point about the word "champion." But I don't understand it.

But with all due respect, I don't think *anyone* means that when they say champion. They mean "the best team." I'd like to know one person besides you that really thinks any team but the best should be crowned champion. That's ludicrous. What they do want is for that claim to be indisputable, and that's what is leading to arguments. We want to know how to make that claim indisputable.

You don't prove you're the best by playing #16, then #8, then #4, then #2. 16 and 8 are irrelevant, because there have never been 16 (or even 3) teams with legitimate claims at number one. Before the bowl season, there have never been more than four, and after, there's never been more than one that hadn't gotten its shot. Just give that team their shot and you've added "undisputed" to the equation.

A playoff changes everything, and fixes nothing. A plus-one simply fixes the current system. And I instruct that you look at 1993, 1997, 2001 and 2002 as real-life examples of seasons that a plus-one game would have resolved completely. If you want, I could meet you halfway and just call it a four-game playoff (even though the first round is the bowl season), but it is a waste of everyone's time to put even eight teams on the same plane of existence by the end of the season. To do so is to waste OSU or USC's time humoring teams that lost their credibility during the season.

eric: sorry, your argument does not make sense. the reason the bcs is so controversial is because it does not decide things on the field of play. tell '85 villanova hoops about what it means to be a champion. no one will argue that they were the best team that year, but they can say "fuck you" we are the champions. steelers same thing. d-1aa, d-2, and d-3(32 team playoff) in college football is the same way. it is a given that a majority of the fans now want a playoff, and the coaches are now coming around, too. this notion that we somehow have to determine who the best team is in d-1 college football by votes and opinions and computers is ridiculous. use those things to get the 16 teams in and then go play the games.

The BCS is about finding out the #1 team in the country, its not about fairness...

All we know at the moment is that Michigan isn't #1. If they play tOSU again, what's it going to prove? Nothing... the game has already been played and we know that they're not #1. They might be #2, but they're not #1 unless they beat #1.

Is SC #1? Is Florida #1? I dunno, if they win out... let them have their shot and we'll all find out.

Before you jump all over me, I'm a UCLA fan so I hate both SC and Florida.

and last i checked, no one was telling '85 villanova hoops, the steelers, mlb cardinals, gator hoops, mount union(d-3 champ last year) to give their rings back. but mamy many people feel that nebraska('01), ou('04), neb('97) among others should not have even been in the discussion about champions, let alone have the chance to play for it. hey, i am a gator and i know that osu and asu both had claims to the '96 crown. i am much more comfortable with '06 gator hoops title being earned.

Perhaps us Pac-10 types are waiting to see if USC beats ND and UCLA before making any noise...

I'm not a real USC fan, but as they play in the in the Pac-10 with my Huskies (who had a surprisingly good season, winning the Apple Cup without their starting QB!), and since Michigan has been defeated by OSU, I really think, should USC win out, that they should get a shot at the championship.

The Big 10 would welcome ND. The problem is, ND won't do it because when they get into the BCS, they get all $15+ million to themselves. If they're in the Big Ten, that $15+ million gets split amongst the other Big Ten teams.

I know there are some number who will read this and certainly not agree with me, but I still contend that OSU is not clearly the best team in the country, and I think (the gall!) Michigan is one team they still need to prove it against.

Ohio State is apparently the best team in Ohio Stadium, but I think that HFA leaves room for doubt about who's best at playing football (as opposed to playing two different games on the same field). I know we switch off years and stuff, but the coincidence of the annual schedule wheel doesn't count as part of your football team's skill, as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately for me, there are, I think, 1,000 articles on ESPN.com that are ignoring this issue entirely, and handing OSU the universe.

If OSU can win at the Shoe, but Michigan could win at the House and perhaps at that crazy stadium in Arizona, in what way has Ohio State proven dominance? We really don't know how those other two games would turn out, and I think it would not be a travesty to find out. (In fact, I would pay any money to watch the rubber match in the Big House. Wouldn't you?)

So obviously, I'm in favor of a rematch, but please don't yell at me, because if the BCS decides the SEC deserves a shot instead, I'm not gonna get all nuts. The same might be true of USC, even though they suck.

Besides, if Michigan should now be eliminated from consideration for all this, what the fuck are USC and UF and Arkansas still doing in the picture? If one of our premises is that a three-point win in the Shoe undeniably establishes OSU as the cream of the crop, the #1 team in the country, why would we even bother to send one of those other teams to play them? How about we just call the National Championship now, unplayed?

Michigan doesn't deserve a shot for their close loss on the road to a great team, so obviously USC doesn't deserve a shot, due to their close loss on the road to a middling-to-bad team. Arkansas obviously is out, based on their huge home loss to a team which we have already disqualified, while Florida lost as well, so they have nothing to say in this picture. ND hardly merits mentioning. Of course, you're ready to say that my argument leaves room only for Boise State, but don't bring that trash 'round here.

I understand the "consecutive games vs. the same opponents" argument, but the "Michigan is clearly NOT #1" argument seems hollow to me; Michigan did not get annihilated, and other conditions were certainly in OSU's favor.

The thing about the consecutive games argument is, I still think it would be a pretty compelling event. Also, the teams might be the same, but the conditions will be different. If OSU can pull out another one with the conditions balanced and teams playing football being the only variables, there you go. If Michigan can beat OSU, given a nice strong field to run on - I say they deserve the title.

pootie:"Tournament-winner" and "best team" are two unrelated terms. They may coincide certain years, but correlation does not imply causation. I repeat: correlation DOES NOT imply causation.

There is only one controversy that can exist in college football: the second best team in the country doesn't get to play the best team. A plus-one solves that every single year. A tournament doesn't.

This is why a tournament is theoretically perfect: The assumption that the better team wins each game. 1-16, 2-15,...then eventually 1-4, 2-3, then 1-2. But the problem is, that doesn't happen. Or are you trying to argue that it does?

Upsets are a fact of life in the fast-paced, fluky world of tournaments. I'm not talking about where the favored team loses. I'm talking about when the *better* team loses. Upsets are fun, but they have nothing to do with determining the best team in the country. I'm not saying a tournament wouldn't be fun, but it also wouldn't solve the problem with college football's Nat'l Championship. In fact, it would be worse. Good for Villanova, they won the trophy. But they weren't the best team that year. They were very good--you have to be to beat one of the best teams in the history of the sport. But they were not the best team, they just had a great, great game.

In college basketball, you're playing to win a tournament. In college football, you're playing to prove you're the best. If you want to prove you're the very best, you have to play the very best, and in a system where upsets are inherent, that does not happen every year.

Unless you want to prove to me that tournaments figure out the best team in the country every year, I don't see the point in discussing this with you any more.

eric: you are making my point for me. for some unknown reason, college football, at the division 1 level, has always been about trying to figure out who the best team is, instead of crowning a champion. hence, the controversy every year, some much more than others. we, as fans, and i do think the coaches and players will agree, want to settle it on the field of play, that is, a champion. d-1 football somehow has set itself apart from all of the other division in football, all of the other ncaa sports, as well as professional and even high school sports. we all understand that a tournament will not always give us the best team, and we are all ok with that, because at least 'x' number of teams had a chance to win it all. we do, however, want our champions. and we don't want them to be mythical. if the bcs or bowl system, or even a plus-one is the best way to go about finding a champion, all other sports at every level should get on board with that. i would respectfully disagree that it is the best way.

A lot of pundits are saying that Michigan deserves to play in the 2006 National Championship against the Ohio State University in spite of losing to them in the regular season finale. I disagree.

Sure, Michigan gave a good account of themselves against Ohio State in a vehemently hostile environment. Sure, the game was a monster matchup considering they were both 11-0, and considering the historic rivalry between the two teams. Sure, they both tore apart each other's championship calibre defenses. However, consider for a moment that Michigan never lead OSU in the entire game. Consider that Michigan trailed by at least a touchdown almost throughout the game. Consider that Troy Smith and Jim Tressel have had Michigan's number for the past four years. Do you really want to see a Ohio State Michigan matchup? I certainly don't.

If USC wins out, then there is no doubt in my mind that they should play for the National Championship. A Jim Tressel-Pete Carroll matchup is as good as it gets! Things get interesting if they don't. It might then be a tossup between a one-loss SEC team (either Florida or Arkansas is such a possibility at this time), Notre Dame, and Michigan. Arkansas doesn't quite make the cut because of the sound thrashing USC gave them in their home opener. Notre Dame too was whopped by Michigan at home. So the run is really between a possible one-loss Florida team and Michigan. If Florida puts on a show in its last two games vs. Florida State and Arkansas respectively, then, in my mind, the Gators will have earned their championship berth.

Last comment - USC lost to an unranked team...how is this so overlooked by everyone. They shouldnt be considered higher than a team that lost to a number 2 team no matter the circumstances of the defeat.

I appreciate your being civil, pootietang. This argument could probably go on into the night, but I can't keep going over the same points.

Here is our argument as I see it:1) you believe that it is most important to have a champion -my counterargument is, your method only does this by creating a system whereby you can only have one team left at the end, imperfect though it may be2) I believe that it is most important to find out who's number one -your counterargument is, you prefer the worst case scenario of a tournament (where a team like Villanova, which is clearly not the best team, can win it all), over that of a BCS match, (where there could be disagreement after the two best teams play--which I have shown would be solved every year it has happened by adding a plus-one game, but I won't beat a dead horse)

I will add that the popular choice is not by definition the correct one (another case of correlation doesn't imply causation), so please don't invoke that to legitimize your preferred system. I haven't been persuaded by anything you've said, and I guess the same applies for you.

By this reasoning Dan, will you renounce Florida's football championship? They lost to Florida State and then played them in a rematch for the national championship.You cannot compare the two. Here’s why.#1 Florida lost a very close heartbreaking game to #2 FSU, @ FSU, in a game that many deemed a classic 24-21 FSU. They fell to 4th in the country behind 1 loss Nebraska.

Nebraska lost the Big 12 title game pushing them down and moving Florida up to 3rd before the bowls.

The Pac 10/Big 10 were still stuck with their “traditional Rose Bowl” and therefore if a Pac 10 or Big 10 team was #2 they would have to go to the Rose Bowl and not the Bowl Coalition’s Championship game. Arizona State was #2 and lost to Ohio State in the Rose Bowl the night before the Florida/FSU “rematch” which then made the Sugar Bowl for all the marbles.

The Bowl Coalition put together the top 2 teams from the Coaches Poll unless they were in the Big 10 or Pac 10. Therefore under the agreement #1 FSU had to play #3 Florida

Florida was not handed the #2 ranking because the game at Doak was a classic 1 v. 2 match up that deserved a rematch. They needed a lot of help to get their shot to win the title.

That 1997 Rose Bowl was one heck of a good game. Although I was pulling for Arizona St. and Jake the snake to pull it out for the awesomeness that an ASU championship would be, or conversely the controversy over 2 undefeated teams had FSU then won. Fucking Joe Germaine, I still haven't forgiven you for that last minute drive.

Can I please have some of the crack you are smoking?? OSU is not CLEARLY the #1 team?? The game against UM was not even as close as the score indicated. UM won the TO battle 3-0!! 2 of those were unforced TO's and the only thing UM did was fall on the ball. The 3rd was a tipped int that was caused by 2 UM players ALL OVER Robiskie. How there wasnt PI on that play I will never know. The TO's led to 10 Mich points. Those are the FACTS.

Then later in the 4th Qtr on 4th and 17 the "phantom" PI on OSU to give UM a 1st down. If there is no PI on Robiske there sure as hell not PI on that play. That sustained the UM drive and they go down and score. OSU was playing prevent D so they could get the ball back and run out the clock.

So all of that combined is AT LEAST 17 points for UM. That isnt even taking into account that OSU most likely would have scored when they had those TO's. I wont even give OSU any points but we all know they would have scored and scored again on the sorry UM defense. UM wasnt stopping anyone that day. Can you say 503 total yards??

The game wasnt even as close as the final score indicated. If you think it was then you really really dont know football at all. Im surprised more people dont realize how much in control of this game OSU was. UM does not deserve a rematch. END.OF.STORY.

You will have to wait until next year to see if LLLLLoyd can be owned again by Tressel.

Connect With Me

Quickish

About This Blog

DanShanoff.com is a sports-blog spin-off of my long-time ESPN.com column, "The Daily Quickie." Anchored by an early-morning post of must-know topics, the blog is updated frequently throughout the day with new posts and user comments.